Our data suggest that VCE detects small-bowel tumors in a small proportion of patients undergoing this examination, but the early use of this tool can shorten the diagnostic work-up and influence the subsequent management of these patients.

Background Lockdown measures applied during the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak caused a significant disturbance to hospital routine. We assessed trainees’ and fellowship directors’ perceptions regarding the impact of the pandemic on gastroenterology fellowship training. Methods A web-based survey was anonymously disseminated to all Greek gastroenterology fellows and fellowship program directors. Participants completed electronically a questionnaire comprised of 5 domains that assessed participants’ perception of: 1) overall impact on training; 2) impact on training in gastroenterology-specific fields (endoscopy, inflammatory bowel disease, hepatology); 3) impact on different aspects of endoscopy training; 4) impact on academic training; and 5) training perspectives for the post-pandemic era. Results A total of 77/128 fellows (60.1%) and 18/28 fellowship program directors (64.3%) responded. More fellows reported that the COVID-19 pandemic would have an adverse impact on fellowship training compared to their fellowship program directors (81.8% vs. 55.6%, P=0.038). This concern was mainly focused on endoscopy training (83.1% vs. 27.8%, P<0.001), with no difference regarding training in gastroenterology’s other specific fields. The difference was consistent for technical skills (79.2% vs. 38.9%, P=0.001), and for the performance of basic diagnostic (70.1% vs. 22.2%, P<0.001) and emergency (48.1% vs. 11.1%, P=0.004) procedures. Fellows and fellowship program directors identified the unknown timeframe of measure implementation and the postponement of scheduled endoscopic procedures as the main factors that negatively affected training. Extension of the fellowship training program was deemed the optimal option by fellows for addressing the training decrement in the post-pandemic era, while fellowship program directors favored an increase in workload. Conclusion Fellows and their fellowship program directors do not share the same concerns about the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on training programs and they propose different measures to remedy its effects.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of endoscopically placed metal stents in comparison with operative procedures, in patients with obstructive pancreatic head cancer. Endoscopic stenting techniques and materials for gastrointestinal malignancies are constantly improving. Despite this evolution, many still consider operative procedures to be the gold standard for palliation in patients with unresectable obstructive pancreatic head cancer. This is a retrospective study of 52 patients who were diagnosed with obstructive (biliary, duodenal, or both) adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head. Twenty-nine patients (endoscopy group) underwent endoscopic stenting. Eleven patients (bypass group) underwent biliodigestive bypass. Twelve patients (Whipple group) underwent Whipple operation with curative intent; however, histopathology revealed R1 resection (palliative Whipple). T4 disease was identified in 13 (44.8%), 7 (63.6%), and 3 (25%) patients in the endoscopy, bypass, and Whipple groups, respectively. Metastatic disease was present only in the endoscopy group (n = 12; 41.3%). There was no intervention-related mortality. Median survival was 280 days [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 103, 456 days], 157 days (95% CI, 0, 411 days), and 647 days (95% CI, 300, 993 days) for the endoscopy, bypass, and Whipple groups, respectively (P = 0.111). In patients with obstructive pancreatic head cancer, endoscopic stenting may offer equally good palliation compared with surgical double bypass. The numerically (not statistically) better survival after palliative Whipple might be explained by the smaller tumor burden in this subgroup of patients and not by the superior efficacy of this operation.

No abstract

No abstract